HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI?

Judith Allen

Professor of Housing and Regeneration

University of Westminster

England

Countryall

householdspoor

householdsall

householdspoor

householdsDenmark 9 11 58 44Netherlands 9 18 55 73Belgium 11 17 69 69France 11 19 71 78Ireland 14 25 90 100Italy 28 47 174 192Greece 33 57 205 231Spain 19 26 118 106Portugal 27 38 172 153Austria 8 13 52 51SwedenGermanyUnited Kingdom 9 11 56 44EU11 16 25 100 100

Low satisfaction with housing situation% of: EU = 100

Source: SOCOHO, 2007

Three interlinked political decisions:

• Who will be housed?

• What type of subsidy will be used?

• To whom will subsidy be paid?

PANDORA’S BOX

Who will be housed?

To whom will the subsidy be paid?

What type of

subsidy?

Types of subsidy:

• capital subsidy (bricks and mortar)

• operating subsidy to providing organisations

• personal subsidy to occupiers

Who receives the subsidy:

• individual person

• housing organisations: public, private/public partnership, private

• social welfare organisations

PER CHI?The question of deciding who will get

to live in social housing

General types of allocation systems

THREE TYPES OF ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

1. Universalistic

2. Targeted

a) Generalist: income ceilingb) Residual: focused on specific vulnerable groups

Only the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have universalist systems.

Targeted generalist systems : Austria, Czech Republic, France, Finland, Poland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Greece.

Targeted residual systems: UK, France, Ireland, Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Malta, Hungary, Cyprus, Portugal, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Spain

PER CHI?• People with low incomes

• People currently living in substandard housing

• People who are socially vulnerable

Low income

Socially vulnerable

Substandard housing

Low incomes

Source: SOCOHO, 2007

CountryPoverty gap (%)

Share of bottom

20%Share of top 20%

Ratio of top to

bottomDenmark 22.8 9.2 34.7 3.8Netherlands 28.7 8.7 38.5 4.4Belgium 27.0 7.7 44.2 5.8France 29.2 7.8 37.6 4.8Ireland 19.0 7.7 41.6 5.4Italy 32.1 7.3 38.4 5.3Greece 35.4 5.9 42.5 7.2Spain 32.8 7.0 41.5 6.0Portugal 32.8 5.9 45.8 7.7Austria 25.5 8.8 35.7 4.1Sweden 28.7 8.7 34.4 3.9Germany 30.5 8.1 37.9 4.7United Kingdom 32.0 6.3 41.7 6.6EU13 31.0 7.5 39.1 5.2

Income inequalityIncome distribution

Source: SOCOHO, 2007

Countryall

householdspoor

householdsall

householdspoor

householdsDenmark 6.5 10.7 34 40Netherlands 2.8 8.2 15 31Belgium 23.1 41.1 122 153France 18.0 27.6 95 103Ireland 15.4 30.2 81 112Italy 40.9 54.0 216 201Greece 26.2 25.2 138 94Spain 28.7 41.5 152 155Portugal 23.5 37.6 124 140Austria 10.8 22.7 57 84SwedenGermany 14.7 18.2 78 68United Kingdom 6.2 9.4 33 35EU12 18.9 26.8 100 100

Poor households for which housing costs are a heavy burden% of burdened households within: EU = 100

Country 1990 2004 ChangeDenmark 27.8 30.0 2.2Netherlands 18.5 21.6 3.1Belgium 25.9France 21.4Ireland 15.1 20.7 5.6Italy 16.6 25.5 8.9Greece 16.2 15.4 - 0.8Spain 17.0Portugal 20.3Austria 16.2 19.5 3.3Sweden 25.7 28.6 2.9Germany 23.8United Kingdom 16.4 18.7 2.3

Housing consumption as % of total household consumption

Source: Housing Statistics 2005

Source: SOCOHO, 2007

Countryall

householdspoor

householdsall

householdspoor

householdsDenmark 0.62 0.55 89 75Netherlands 0.52 0.61 75 83Belgium 0.63 0.70 90 95France 0.68 0.77 97 104Ireland 0.67 0.65 96 88Italy 0.84 0.96 121 131Greece 0.94 0.96 136 130Spain 0.75 0.87 109 118Portugal 0.86 0.80 124 109Austria 0.69 0.68 99 92Sweden 0.64 0.68 93 93Germany 0.68 0.69 98 94United Kingdom 0.58 0.57 84 77EU13 0.69 0.74 100 100

Overcrowding: Occupancy densityPersons per room: EU = 100

Substandard housing

TECHNICAL CONDITION OF HOUSING

• In general, Italy compares well with other European countries in terms of the technical quality of the buildings although the poorest 20% live in the worst buildings

• Households are the most dissatisfied, among the comparator countries, with the physical environment of their homes: noise, pollution, etc

• They are close to the average in terms of worry about crime and vandalism

• On these last two indicators, there is no difference between all households and the poorest 20%

OTHER PHYSICAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DISSATISFACTION WITH HOUSING:

• New dwellings appear to be very much smaller than those in the existing stock, and the smallest compared to other European countries

• There aren’t very many new dwellings being built (only UK and Denmark have lower rates of new building)

• A disproportionate amount of dwellings are in multi-family and high-rise blocks

Country

m2 total dwelling stock

m2 per new dwelling

m2 per person

(occupied stock)

Denmark 113.1 107.0 52.4Netherlands 98.0 115.5 41.0Belgium 81.3 105.5 *33.9France 89.7 111.0 37.5Ireland 104.0 105.0 35.0Italy 96.0 76.5 36.5Greece 81.3 124.6 30.6Spain 90.0 100.6 31.3Portugal 83.0 88.9 *29.6Austria 93.9 101.0 38.3Sweden 91.5 94.0 44.5Germany 89.7 113.9 40.1United Kingdom 86.9 82.7 44.0

Average useful floor area

Source: Housing Statistics, 2005* estimated

Country

dwellings completed

per 1000 inhabitants

% of social housing in

new dwelling completions

% of multi-family

dwellings in total stock

% of high rise dwellings in

total stockDenmark 2.9 40.0 38.8 10.4Netherlands 4.7 18.3 31.1 6.7Belgium 3.8 6.0 25.1 4.3France 6.4 13.0 43.3 15.9Ireland 13.2 9.0 8.6Italy 3.6 2.2 74.7 22.7Greece 8.5 0.0 40.6Spain 11.4 12.7 47.5 30.6Portugal 10.8 22.6 21.6Austria 6.6 30.0 52.1Sweden 1.8 14.4 51.9Germany 5.1 3.2 53.9 6.0United Kingdom 3.1 13.8 18.7 34.1

Dwellings completed, social housing completed, and building type

Source: Housing Statistics, 2005

Socially vulnerable groups

SOCIALLY VULNERABLE GROUPS

The good, the bad and the ugly

• Elderly people, especially the frail and very old

• Minority ethnic groups facing discrimination in the housing market

• Young people living in or leaving care institutions

• Those leaving a variety of institutions: prisons, armed forces, etc

• Physically disabled

• Those with chronic and/or terminal illnesses

• Women experiencing domestic violence (and their children)

• Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled

• Substance abusers: alcohol, drugs

• Refugees and asylum seekers

• Gypsies and travellers

Organisation of health, police and social welfare services:

state and non-state

Who should provide the housing? Ability of personal and housing services to coordinate

their work

The good news . . .

. . . there appears to be a low risk of homelessness in Italy

(Although the data are not very dependable, and . . .

. . . the age of emancipation and of marriage are also very high.)

Source: SOCOHO, 2007

Country

homeless people as a

% of all households EU = 100

Denmark 0.17 12Netherlands 0.18 15Belgium 0.13 11France 1.46 118Ireland 0.30 24Italy 0.36 29Greece 0.20 16Spain 0.09 7Portugal 0.12 10Austria 0.26 21Sweden 0.31 25Germany 2.38 193United Kingdom 1.89 153EU13 1.23 100

Risk of homelessness

CATEGORIES OF HOMELESSNESS

1. Roofless: sleeping rough or in night shelters

2. Houseless: in special housing for the homeless, women’s shelters, special housing for immigrants, due to be released from institutions, receiving personal support in specialised housing

3. Insecure housing: temporarily with friends or family, no legal tenancy or right to occupy, living under threat of eviction

4. Inadequate housing: temporary or non-standard structures, unfit housing, extreme overcrowding

Homelessness and social vulnerability are overlapping categories.

The question is whether services aim to deliver to the socially vulnerable (social services, health services) or to the homeless (housing provision).

CONCLUSIONS:

HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI?

Deciding who is to be housed is one way to consider the specific aspects of subsidy arrangements and how to link subsidy arrangements to issues of subsidiarity and proportionality.

CONCLUSIONS:

HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI?

The key choice is the relative balance between targeted generalist and residual allocations systems.

This choice also implies considering what type of organisation to support (social services, or housing organisations, or joined-up projects.

CONCLUSIONS:

HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI?

Housing programmes can be used to support other important objectives: regeneration, town planning, energy efficiency, counter-cyclical economic policy, social services, etc.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING